How dogs are NOT livestock

[teach1rusl]

Quote:

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
I guess you've not heard about some of my neighbors who like to wok their dogs....

Again, I'm talking about what our culture generally thinks. Generally, Americans do not eat dog.

Thats actually a racist statement..... European Americans do not, African Americans do not, but every other race in the Americas do. Including American Americans, you know, natives. Quit mistaking the European American culture as American culture as a whole. It is not!

 

[onthespot]

X2. Beat me to it!

 

[Pupsnpullets]

Quote:
Just FYI, over the last two years I've raised nine show-bred puppies and also adopted/fostered nine rescues.

Of the rescues, one was purebred. He went back to his breeder and is living happily in California now.

The Papillon/Cavalier mix has a hideous overbite and other structural issues.
The Dachshund-Jack Russell has angular limb problems and is already arthritic in his front feet at age 2. He came with two of his siblings; one had longer legs and no problems but his sister has the same stuff he does.
The Catahoula X has hip dysplasia.
The Malti-poo has an underbite and attendant dental problems and major temperament issues.
The Boston-Poodle had to be put down due to epilepsy.

The show-bred puppies come from generations of health-tested dogs. They may end up with looser hips than I'd like because that's the nature of their breed, but their line is well established and nationally known for not producing symptomatic dogs. I know exactly how long each ancestor has lived and what they died of. I could absolutely PROMISE owners that they would not end up with heritable eye problems, front-end deformities, or temperament problems.

Purebred doesn't equal disease. Disease equals disease. Mixed-breed dogs are not healthier than purebreds. Poor breeding within ANY population, no matter how unrelated, gives you unhealthy dogs. And mixed-breed dogs are rarely ACTUALLY mixed-breed - i.e., they are not hybrids. When you put together a Poodle and a Lab, you're combining genes that have only been separated for a couple hundred years at most. They have the exact same genes for skin problems, heart problems, Cushings, and epilepsy, and you're not making a healthier decision breeding a Lab and a Poodle than a Lab and a Lab. That's the honest truth. If you want to *actually* get a hybrid dog, you'd have to put together one of the genuine old sighthounds - Sloughi, for example - with an European breed or an Asian breed. Not a Maltese and a Pomeranian, or ANYTHING and a poodle, or anything and a shepherd.

There are good breeders who linebreed, who work within AKC, who work outside AKC, who mix breeds, who only outcross, and so on and so on. It's not glomming onto one strategy that makes you a good breeder or makes your puppies worth buying. It's knowing what you're doing and putting together dogs who are as likely to succeed as possible. It's absolutely fine with me if you or any other owner buys a mixed-breed or non-AKC dog. But make sure your mixed-breed breeder passes the same tests and same qualifications as a show or field breeder, and do NOT be fooled into thinking that purebred is unhealthy and mixed is healthy.

I do understand where you are coming from, Blacksheep, and I agree with most of what you're saying. That is why a specified any future dog of mine would have to be "sane, sensible, with the appearance of good health". That over-rides anything else for me. Most of your examples above are of sad little dogs who's problems would have been easily diagnosed at a glance or after hanging out with them for a period of time - which is something I definitely would do. Unless it was a stray and needed immediate help, of course.

I said also that me next dog would "almost" definitely not a papered purebred. As they say, exception proves the rule. I currently have a purebred and I couldn't have found a finer dog - except that he went blind as a 7 year old. Still think he's an amazing fella. I also have a lab-greyhound mix who is a kind gentle loving dog, too, so my point is that really I think choosing a dog is very personal and, yes, I will use certain criteria to narrow the choice. That criteria won't necessarily exclude a dog that may be perfect for what I want and having papers up the wazoo. I would prefer a rescue, though, but, again, that's not set in stone either. One of my previous dogs was a lovely Rottweiller female from top German show lines. She was a freeby as she wasn't quite perfect for showing (she had what they called "flying nun" ears!! ie they were too large). I got her on condition she be returned to them if she grew into her ears and became a show prospect. Lovely dog. She chose to become my mother's special guardian, perhaps because she sensed my mother wasn't well.

Any, enough waffling. Surfice to say any dog with a good mind and a healthy body would be of consideration to me.

 

[Beekissed]

I agree with Wifezilla on this subject!

 

[Skittlez]

I think the debate of breeding will always have opposing sides. As a dog lover, I find it getting more and more difficult to find a good, sound, sane family dog that does not cost too much money. I don't have a problem with people paying $1,000 for a champion show dog and taking that dog and showing, working, and training the dog to its max potential and then breeding it to a comparable dog of the same abilities. I do have a problem with an average dog being bred with no history of health or capabilities to perform its natural duties and is still for sale for $1,000.

What makes the dog worth so much money? Why are people paying that kind of price if you are not going to use the dog for anything but being a family dog?

There will always be unethical breeders and uneducated breeders, but we can help this problem by not paying for their puppies. I think more people would spay and neuter, if it was more affordable. I think if people knew about the mobile spay units and knew how they worked better, they would use them more. I also think that if breeders are selling their puppies for "pet only" they should be spayed and neutered before going to their new home.

My neighbor has 2 poodles. Both unpapered, both have very bad conformation, both are not very smart. They bred them. 5 puppies with no first shots, no worming, no traceable parentage. The pups were sold for $150 each. Would the neighbors breed the dogs again if people refused to pay such a high price for the pups and the neighbors got stuck with these pups? Maybe not. Why do people pay for these pups? The shelter will take them off the neighbors hands, and the neighbors will breed again. Maybe the shelter should only take the pups, IF the parents are surrendered also. All of them would be spayed and neutered and the breeding cycle of those dogs would stop.

It may be a very small step, but it is a step in the right direction.

I can't tell others what to do, but I can do my part and not buy a pup from these kind of breeders. I do my part by not buying a pet store pup, a puppy mill pup, or buying a pup from a reputable breeder for $1,000 knowing they will be a family pet only. I will not support an overpriced pet. I will not support a breeder that makes up their own breed, or makes up their own new color of an existing breed just so they can get big money for their dog. I will adopt from a shelter IF they have reasonable fees, and had the right match for my family and have honestly represented the dog. Honesty goes a long way and dogs would be returned less if they had honest, knowledgeable people assessing the dogs temperment.

I don't think all breeding should stop, there are many wonderful, honest, ethical breeders out there. Breeders that do care about the breed, and making the breed better and stronger the right way. Kudos to those breeders. Shame on the buyers who buy dogs from anyone who does less than that.